CSO Accountability in the Caribbean

Transcription

1 CSO Accountability in the Caribbean by Nelcia Robinson, CAFRA, Trinidad and Tobago Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in the Caribbean have a strong tradition of serving those most disadvantaged in our society. This representation of diverse society views and needs was a key feature of the movement in the independence/post independence period (late 60s and 70s) where social organization and mobilization was a popular means of advocating for change and development based on equality and fairness. This period saw a significant movement of activists coming together to effect change on national and regional levels, convening meetings, staging peaceful protest, undertaking petitions all within generally Marxist/Pan Africanist/Liberation theology ideological underpinnings. It should be noted however, that despite much collective activism during this period, there was relatively little in terms of the institutionalization of actions. The period of the 80s however, saw another aspect of the regional CSO movement that of an institutionalization of the movement as service provider, providing social services and development projects to women, farmers, youth, rural peoples etc. This was an attempt to provide a direct response to the myriad of social challenges facing the Caribbean s poor and disadvantaged communities. It is this change for which the movement in the 70s had advocated. Supporting this institutionalized action was a parallel access of international resources available to finance CSOs to undertake much of the projects and activities needed to respond to the region s most needy. The 90s provided the best examples of the progression of CSOs from community and nationally based action/projects to one of policy advocacy 1

2 and development. This came about primarily as a result of a realization and identification of the need to influence public policy formulation in a coordinated way, first at the national level and later at the regional and international levels. CSOs recognized there was need for structured and informed advocacy and lobbying initiatives. This juncture of CSO history saw a recognition and acceptance of the need to carefully examine the role of international influences on Caribbean development. Yes, national policies were impacting on Caribbean society, however, the liberalization of national/regional autonomy and policy formulation to the international level via the UN/Inter-American System, IMF, WTO, World Bank to name a few, also had significant impact on Caribbean society much of this impact was negative. Policy intervention was identified as a priority primarily as a direct result of the adverse structural adjustment programmes that permeated the Caribbean landscape, causing significant social and economic dislocation. Institutionalized policy interventions via alternative research, collective dialogue, regional and international strategic networking became a normal course of action across the region. It was at this stage we saw the re-emergence of questions being asked of CSOs in the Caribbean as regards their accountability and legitimacy. There are many reasons why such questions may have been raised. Some may very well have been legitimate questioning of the operation of CSOs and their constituencies. However, it must be noted that there was a high correlation between public officials raising accountability issues and incidences where CSOs found themselves in disagreement with the policies of their national governments, and in some cases regional and international institutions that influence public policy development. The relationship between CSOs and 2

3 governments in the region has been difficult at times as NGOs/CSOs in advocating on behalf of their constituents often found themselves advocating against public policy of the day. The main questions asked of CSOs were to whom are you accountable? What right does a CSO have to approach a government, regional or international public policy institution to advocate on behalf of a particular group? Many public sector officials occasionally have posited that CSOs are not elected, so they cannot possibly have a legitimate role to play in public policy formulation and development. I am sure that many of us would have come across this issue at some point in time over the past decade or so. It is a view that contends (and what David Browne of the Harvard University and Jagadananda of CIVICUS call) representative accountability as the sole means for public policy advocacy and lobbying. This description of what makes an actor legitimate and accountable often suggests, and wrongly so, that the citizens themselves have little rights and roles (individually and collectively) in policy development and formulation after they have voted a government into political power. It totally ignores as well, the right for legitimately organized and focused citizens institutions to attempt to impact public policy. Interestingly, this view is certainly not indicative of the numerous regional and international treaties and charters which recognize the right of civil action and advocacy. For example, the CARICOM civil society charter provides one such document highlighting the basis for state/cso interaction at the national level. Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) defines human rights as claims by an individual on governments and the nation 3

4 state, yet at the same time affirms the dignity and worth of all peoples no matter which state they live in, and calls on all organs of society to promote the realization of rights for all Gem Bendell, Debating NGO Accountability Bendell further notes that the principle of human rights is therefore an assertion that every person, no matter their place of birth, residence, gender, race, religion, politics, sexual orientation or other form of identity.should have equal opportunity to express themselves so long as they do not undermine the ability of others to do the same. Democratic societies which respect human rights should provide the opportunity for its citizens to have a say in their governance. Enabling citizens both individually and collectively as civil society institutions to express themselves in harmony with others, is an essential part of the democratic traditions of the Caribbean. It is worth exploring the three common types of accountability identified by David Browne and Jagadananda as it broadens the narrow interpretation of accountability often posited by some observers: 1. Representative Accountability emphasizes the obligation of representatives to their constituents. It is commonly used in government circles and has roots in political theory often applied to the public sector expected to be democratically accountable to voters of their elected representatives. May also be relevant to CSOs with a membership. 2. Principal-Agent Accountability Commonly utilized in the business community focuses on motivating agents to achieve the goals of their principals. From this perspective the major challenge is to design incentives that will keep the agent faithful to the principal s interest. 4

5 3. Mutual Accountability particularly relevant to CSOs focuses on creating mutual compacts that bind members through shared values, aspirations and social identities. The parties to mutual accountability define shared goals and buy in to responsibility for achieving them. Sanctions for violating expectations are social and relational, so relationships and trust become critical elements in the construction and implementation of shared analysis and plans. The concept of democratic accountability suggests that CSOs/Governments must be accountable to their constituents. In as much as CSOs themselves require accountability from their governments and public policy institutions, so must they themselves be accountable for their actions. Accountability and legitimacy often relate to the ability and practice of CSOs to represent and or service their constituents. Mary Kaldor, Civil Society and Accountability, identifies two types of accountability that must be addressed by CSOs - Moral Accountability and Procedural Accountability. Moral Accountability speaks to the mission of the CSO, ensuring that the activities of the organization are designed to match its mission. That is ensuring that CSOs truly fulfill their responsibility to their constituents. Procedural Accountability speaks to the internal process of accountability from governance process, financial management and internal checks and balances. This latter type of accountability often is heavily influenced by the constituents of the CSO, its funding agencies and the type of organization. 5

6 There are four accountability mechanisms that were identified by Browne as part of the Global Accountability Project. Transparency mechanisms enable the free flow of information between organizations and stakeholders in decision making, performance and reporting. Reporting and disclosure systems and processes that enable information sharing among parties are central to an effective accountability relationship. Examples include audited accounts and annual reports made available to stakeholders. Participation mechanisms enable internal and external stakeholders to be involved in organizational decision making. Key stakeholder involvement in deciding about goals and activities may be critical to eventual accountability for their performance. Participation mechanisms include regular consultations with stakeholders or inclusion of stakeholder representatives on Boards of Directors. Evaluation mechanisms make it possible for stakeholders as well as the CSO to assess activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts. Monitoring and assessing results enable judgments about the success of organizational efforts in meeting its performance premises. Examples include organizational monitoring and evaluation systems, independent programme evaluations, and social audits. Complaints and redress mechanisms provide vehicles for raising questions about CSO performance and for sanctioning failures to deliver on performance goals. 6

7 The question that must be assessed though, is that given what has just been highlighted, how do Caribbean CSOs perform as accountable and legitimate institutions? On this matter I would like to discuss the enabling environment under which CSOs function in the region. In 2003, a CPDC study of the legal environment under which NGOs operate, identified a lack of appropriate legislation that meets the needs and evolved operation of non-profit development-oriented institutions. In many instances legislation governing CSOs was outdated and in one case as old as from a previous century. In another case (St. Kitts) there was an absence of any legislation. Belize led the way with its 2000 NGO Act and today remains the best example of NGO governance laws in the Caribbean. The question may be asked.why is such legislation important? The answer is a simple one, legislation often serves to concretize the legitimacy of CSOs in law including the identification of its general accountability mechanisms, much like the private sector (under the Companies Act) and the public sector. The absence of updated and relevant legislation to some observers often serves to make the sector appear opaque in its standards, as well as make it difficult to assess the uniformed moral and procedural underpinnings by which CSOs should adhere. Also there is a lack of clarity as to how public policy makers and the public in general view the CSO community due to the lack of clear legal definition and accountability guidelines relevant to the evolved nature of the CSOs in the 21 st century. In simple terms, there is still need for a legal basis by which actors in the sector are known and easily identified. The net effect of this leads to increased ambiguity about CSOs, their roles, expected levels of accountability and legitimacy. Having said this, I must also seek to address the fact that the lack 7

8 of specific CSO legislation in no way suggests that Caribbean CSOs are unaccountable institutions. Rather, the legislative process would go a long way to commencing the general acceptance of the work of CSOs as we deliver our mandates to our members. Moral accountability in particular is important to defining our institutions. Do we represent who we claim to represent? Do we ensure that the views of our constituents are solicited and used to shape the interventions our organizations make on a daily basis? These are all questions that NGOs must themselves answer and more importantly should be in a position to confirm that they do have the moral accountability for their work. CPDC s experience across the Caribbean highlights that in most cases there is a high degree of moral accountability based on the participation of member s members in our national activities. It is important to note however, that the relative capacity of CSO member agencies influences their ability to participate shaping other CSOs mission and work programmes. Stronger and vibrant institutional member agencies may play a greater role in informing umbrella CSOs work than the weaker ones. In an environment of continued declining donor support as we are experiencing now, greater effort therefore must be made to ensure that all members have the opportunity to shape the programmatic agenda. There is still significant work to be done. Very few CSOs can claim that they are fully accountable as the case with our governments themselves, which at times make decisions that appear contrary to public good and well-being. As a sector we must move to fill the gaps of accountability that continue to exist today. The Commonwealth Foundation, in its Non-Governmental 8

9 Organisations: Guideline for Good Policy and Practice, provides us with some important parameters which NGOs (and CSOs) should address in their quest to become accountable entities. These guidelines note both moral and procedural accountability practices that NGOs were using to improve their governance. These were: Stating their mission, values and objectives clearly and ensuring that their strategies and operations are at all times within them Better management processes as well as financial management, accounting and budgeting systems Better human resources development and training within the organization of managers, administrators, project staff, Board members, beneficiaries, members and volunteers Better procedures to ensure that men and women have equal opportunities to participate effectively at all levels of the organization, from members to leaders Better means by which both organization, and its projects, services and activities are monitored, evaluated, and reviewed Better information provision by and about NGOs Better networking and alliance-building among NGOs Having had a regional capacity building programme for over five years now, CPDC can attest to a general observance of a reasonable level of procedural accountability required to effectively manage a CSO. The basic accountability requirements in this respect include: 9

10 Annual Audits Financial Reports Project Reports and Dissemination Operations manual Board of Directors meetings Networking both regionally and internationally There is a general acceptance that NGOs function within the confines of adequate procedural accountability. Moreover, the nature of many CSOs as project management institutions, requiring regular support from independent donors for its projects, goes a long way to maintaining adequate procedural accountability management processes. Each donor agency brings with it, its minimum level of accountability requirements with which Caribbean CSOs must meet before receiving funding. These range from audits, annual reports, previous project reports, and evidence of beneficiary participation in project development to name a few. Caribbean CSOs, largely dependent on donor financing for its viability, must meet these minimum standards of accountability to qualify for project financing. As a CSO movement there is a need for us to build on past successes and improve the levels of accountability we have experienced in the past. Within the context of the present challenging funding environment, accountability, transparency and legitimacy issues become paramount to our survival. Caribbean CSOs must continue to make the case and show, in a forceful way, that our programmes indeed are in response to calls from our constituents who require the advocated change to obtain a sustainable livelihood. Assessing our contribution to democracy and people-centered 10

11 development in the region will go a long way to building our case for relevance, serve as a foundation for why CSOs must continue to exist and remain accountable to our beneficiaries. Each of us here today has experiences which collectively tell worthy case studies of civil action and intervention, the successes and contributions of our actions to the region s development. This clearly highlights how we are, and continue to be morally accountable to our members. Times are indeed challenging and financial sustainability remains a heavy burden for the CSO sector, impacting on our ability to maintain full engagement and communications with all stakeholders as well as manage our offices on an annual basis. There is indeed a role for the CDB and the IDB to play both in assisting us in building our capacity in a practical way. Whether by assisting us to: document the roles and contributions of the CSO community to development over the past three decades, undertake institutional capacity building activities tackling the ongoing challenge of financial sustainability. I hope that we can see them taking up one or all of these initiatives to strengthen the democratic traditions of the region by building the capacity of the CSO movement a practical way. Thank you 11